In depth: WhiteRock Finance
A comprehensive analysis of the WhiteRock Finance project to identify any potentially suspicious elements.
Over the past few days, we received several indications suggesting that WhiteRock may be a scam, with possible connections to the team behind the ZKasino fraud. Intrigued by the claims, we launched a thorough investigation into the project. While this report may be lengthy, our goal was to provide a detailed, transparent, and well-supported analysis to ensure everything is clearly understood and verifiable. We invite you to read on and examine the findings for yourself.
TLDR;
Here are the main red flags we identified for the project:
The core stock trading functionality was down for 9 days due to an expired API HTTPS certificate, and no one noticed until we contacted support.
Unverifiable partnerships: No credible evidence supports any claimed partnerships, and users asking about them were banned.
The team is mostly undoxxed and unverified, with no publicly confirmed identities or credentials.
Opaque and upgradeable contracts: Both WHITE and USDX tokens use proxy contracts, allowing the team to alter the core logic at any time without notice.
USDX stablecoin suffers from low liquidity, lacks real backing, is not properly pegged 1:1 to USD, and has other significant issues.
The “fair launch” is ongoing, but there is no proof of the promised new blockchain being developed.
Actual trading volumes and user adoption are far lower than the team’s public claims.
About the project
WhiteRock Finance is a blockchain-based project that aims to transform traditional finance by tokenizing real-world assets (e.g., stocks, real estate, bonds) and bringing them onto the blockchain. It positions itself as a solution to the inefficiencies and gatekeeping of legacy financial systems, with a focus on decentralization, transparency, and financial inclusion.
Official webpage: https://whiterock.fi/
Official docs: https://docs.whiterock.fi/
Twitter (X) account: https://docs.whiterock.fi/
Telegram: https://t.me/WhiteRock_Finance
Medium: https://medium.com/@WhiteRock_Fi
We began by reviewing the core features that WhiteRock claims to offer, which we will examine in detail throughout this report. These include:
USDX Stablecoin (source): USDX is a stablecoin allegedly pegged 1:1 to the U.S. dollar. According to WhiteRock, the funds backing USDX are invested in U.S. Treasury bills, considered one of the safest assets globally. They also claim to offer automatic yield distribution, promising around 5% annual returns to all USDX holders, instead of retaining the profits themselves.
Tokenized Stocks (source): WhiteRock claims to offer tokenized stocks, allowing users to own fractional shares of real-world equities in a secure, transparent, and accessible manner. Only a few stocks are reportedly available for trading at this stage.
WHITE Token (source): The project’s native token, WHITE, has already launched and is currently being traded.
White Network & WHITENET Token (source): The team claims to be building their blockchain infrastructure, referred to as the “White Network.” A fair launch of the associated WHITENET token is said to be in progress.
All of these features and claims will be critically analyzed and reviewed in the following sections of this report.
The project began showing signs of activity around September 2024, based on its Twitter presence, with the first post appearing shortly thereafter. We reviewed the project's roadmap and, according to their timeline, they should currently be at the end of Phase 1.
However, the roadmap itself appears vague and lacks clear timelines or concrete milestones. For a crypto project claiming to deliver such an ambitious use case, the roadmap feels overly simplistic and unprofessional, raising questions about the project's planning and execution capabilities.
App features and usage
Next, we wanted to evaluate the features offered within the app, which is accessible at: https://whiterock.fi/dashboard.
Currently, only two dashboards are available. The first one is a basic wallet overview with no notable or functional features.
The investment dashboard currently offers the option to buy five different stocks. To better understand how the platform works and assess the user experience firsthand, we decided to test it ourselves by allocating a small amount of funds. This allowed us to explore the app’s functionality and see what was happening behind the scenes.
To begin trading stocks on the platform, you must first deposit USDT into a newly generated wallet address provided by the app, which is controlled by the team. In return, you are issued USDX tokens to your platform wallet (more on this later- many red flags). Currently, no alternative deposit or funding options are supported.
After completing the deposit, we attempted to buy a stock. However, before making a purchase, the platform requires you to enable meta-transactions for your wallet. When we attempted to complete this step, an error message appeared in the bottom-right corner, indicating that an issue had occurred. To investigate further, we checked the browser console for a more detailed error message.
What we discovered is quite telling: the HTTPS certificate for the relayer API had expired, preventing the browser from establishing a secure connection and triggering an error. This is a fundamental issue that any serious project should properly maintain. An expired SSL certificate reflects poor operational oversight and raises concerns about the team's overall professionalism and technical reliability.
We checked the SSL certificate for the platform’s API and found that it expired on June 3, 2025. As of our review on June 11, 2025, the certificate had expired for 9 days, meaning the app was likely non-functional during that time, and no one from the team appeared to notice or take action. All issued certificates and their corresponding dates can be independently verified here.
We reached out to the project's support team on Telegram to report the issue (without revealing that we had already identified the cause). They responded by asking us to move the conversation to direct messages. The first reply we received was:
I just got feedback from the development team. This is a general issue and they're working to resolve this. I will let you know as soon as it's resolved or there's an update
After a few hours, the support team got back to us and asked for a screenshot of the browser console to better understand the error. Not long after we sent it, the issue was resolved, and the button for enabling meta-transactions started working as expected. We also noticed that a new SSL certificate was issued on June 11, 2025, confirming that the fix was implemented.
After that, we attempted to invest in the WHITE token directly through their website, but the feature was not functioning properly, and the transaction failed to process.
Next, we attempted to invest in a stock and selected Coinbase (COIN) for demo purposes. We tried to perform the minimum swap of 10 USDX, but the trading feature was unavailable, and the transaction failed. Instead, we tested the "minting" option, which finally worked.
Upon reviewing the on-chain transaction, we noticed a 7 USDX fee was deducted and transferred to the following wallet address: 0x6d0d7547cd6dd38503beef76544c3130e7d04409.
Upon checking the wallet activity, we confirmed that there were no new incoming transactions since June 1, 2025, which supports the conclusion that the app was effectively non-functional for nine consecutive days.
Let’s wrap up this section with a summary of our findings.
Based on what we've seen, actual usage appears to be very low, a fact reinforced by the 9-day outage caused by an expired API certificate that seemingly went unnoticed by both the team and users. This is highly concerning for a platform claiming to be a serious project.
At this point, the product feels more like a hastily assembled prototype than a functional trading platform. While it's framed as a cutting-edge RWA solution, the lack of polish, depth, and reliability suggests otherwise. Even the on-chain execution model, as described in the documentation, raises questions about its accuracy and legitimacy, a topic we’ll examine more closely later in this report.
Partnerships
Partnerships are a critical component of growth for any crypto project. On WhiteRock's official website, several major companies and institutions are mentioned, including BlackRock, StoneX, and First Citizens Bank, which implies potential affiliations or collaborations.
These partnerships would significantly boost the project's credibility if only they were genuine. To verify their legitimacy, we conducted a thorough investigation across the web, Twitter, and the official websites of the companies mentioned. As we’ll demonstrate next, many others have also searched for proof, but their efforts have come up empty.
When users ask about WhiteRock's partnerships on their official Reddit account, their posts are often removed. Here's one such example.
Even on other platforms, such as Telegram and Discord, users report being banned simply for inquiring about these partnerships. Numerous similar accounts can be found on Reddit and various blog posts, highlighting a pattern of censorship around this topic.
Here is an interesting review about the topic:
We also attempted to verify the claimed partnerships using independent sources beyond the project's official website, but found no supporting evidence. There’s no official press release from BlackRock or any of the others. This lack of transparency is highly suspicious and represents a major red flag. With further investigation, we uncovered even more concerning information related to the alleged partnerships and potential token price manipulation.
In April, there was news about World Liberty Financial (WLFI), a crypto project linked to the Trump family backing the WhiteRock. Zebec Protocol announced a collaboration with ‘WLFI-backed WhiteRock.’ This announcement seems to be the source of the confusion, suggesting a link that WLFI now denies. The WHITE tokens on the World Liberty wallet could lead to confusion. Just after the Zebec Protocol and Zach Witkoff (co-founder at WLFI) apologized and tagged the news as false.
Upon examining World Liberty Financial’s wallets, we found they hold 10 billion WHITE tokens, currently valued at around $9 million. However, transaction history shows these tokens were sent from WhiteRock team wallets in February. This tactic, sending large amounts of tokens to prominent wallets, is commonly used by questionable projects seeking to gain legitimacy through perceived associations. For a project that claims to be legitimate, this raises yet another red flag.
To date, WhiteRock has not responded to Zach Witkoff’s denial or clarified its relationship with WLFI. Their continued silence only deepens the uncertainty surrounding the situation.
The same amount of tokens, 1% of the total supply, was also sent by the team to Vitalik Buterin’s wallet address shortly after the token was minted in October.
On May 14, the team posted a tweet claiming that WhiteRock would become the official sponsor of a Premier League team. However, as of June 11, no further updates or proof have been provided to support this announcement.
In late May, a new rumor began circulating on X, claiming that WhiteRock was partnering with Ripple to tokenize the oil supply chain of a major Saudi producer, reportedly Saudi Aramco. Although neither Ripple nor WhiteRock has confirmed the partnership, the unverified claim sparked significant market excitement, causing the token to surge by over 100%.
Even more partnerships have been claimed, such as one with SWIFT, but there is no way to verify these claims.
This concludes our section on partnerships. Despite a thorough investigation, we found no verifiable evidence to support any of the alleged partnerships promoted by the project. Instead, we encountered a pattern of misinformation, questionable claims, and community members being banned for simply asking about these connections. This lack of transparency is deeply concerning and raises serious questions about the project's credibility.
Team and Company
One of the most critical aspects of any crypto project is the strength and credibility of its team. According to claims on the project’s website, WhiteRock is backed by a highly experienced team.
Our team brings extensive experience from working at top global banks such as Goldman Sachs, ING, and Emirates NBD. This deep knowledge in both traditional finance and blockchain technology ensures we deliver innovative and reliable solutions.
There is no additional information about the team on the official website, including founders, team bios, or the number of people involved. This lack of transparency is highly unusual for a project led by seasoned professionals.
We did, however, find a LinkedIn page for the company: WhiteRock LinkedIn – People, which lists seven individuals as being associated with the project.
We also came across the following information on the project’s official Reddit account:
However, most of the listed individuals either don’t have active LinkedIn profiles or their profiles are vague and lack the previously claimed experience. At first glance, everything appears quite questionable.
For example, we looked into the profile of "Maxime Pizzolitto" - a supposed founder. And found very little evidence of this person existing outside of WhiteRock-related content. Nearly all references to the name can be traced back to WhiteRock’s materials, raising doubts about their authenticity.
We also found a few livestreams featuring "Max G." and "Amin Azawib," but they appeared to be filmed from an empty office with no additional context. A broader online search yielded no credible information about these individuals.
Given the lack of transparency, we decided to investigate further and look for any traces of the WhiteRock team on Twitter and other online platforms. During our search, we came across a YouTube series by Dead Daddy, who dives into the story behind the project. According to the series, WhiteRock claims to be headquartered in Dubai, but there appear to have been some complications around this claim. You can watch the full video series here to form your own opinion: YouTube Link. It offers a thought-provoking perspective on the project.
Regarding official company information, we found it buried in the project’s Terms and Conditions, which mention WhiteStone Group Ltd, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI Business Company No. 21593774, dated October 2, 2024).
This setup suggests a typical offshore shell company, with no supporting evidence of real operations, physical headquarters, or a legitimate business presence.
Another company name and address can be found in the footer of the WhiteRock website:
WhiteRock Institute Ltd is incorporated under registration number 2159373 and located at Trinite Chambers, PO Box 4301, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands.
While searching online, we came across rumors suggesting that one of ZKasino's key figures, @XBT_Prometheus, is now operating under a new Twitter handle, @20xBull, and allegedly goes by the name Ildar Ilham. He is believed to have close ties to the WhiteRock project. These are serious allegations, and due to their significance, we’ve dedicated a full chapter later in the report to investigate this connection in detail.
With this, we conclude the chapter. There are numerous red flags surrounding the project. For a platform that aspires to become a leading Real-World Asset (RWA) solution for transparent stock trading, having a fully doxxed and verifiable team is essential. The lack of transparency, questionable affiliations, and unresolved concerns raise serious doubts about the project's legitimacy.
Community and socials
We conducted a review of WhiteRock project's social media presence and identified the following official accounts:
Twitter (X): https://x.com/WhiteRock_Fi
Telegram: https://t.me/WhiteRock_finance
Medium: https://medium.com/@WhiteRock_Fi
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/whiterock-fi/ (already checked in the previous section)
Webpage: http://whiterock.fi
Let’s start by examining the Twitter (X) account. It currently has over 40,000 followers and 232 posts. While the account was created in April 2021, the first post related to WhiteRock wasn’t made until September 3, 2024 - around the time the project publicly launched. This suggests that the account was created for a different purpose and later repurposed for the WhiteRock project.
We utilized the Telegram bot @twdata_bot to examine the history of WhiteRock’s Twitter account. According to the data, the account has been renamed four times:
@noisedeaf111156
@whiterockfi
@whitegizmodefi
@whiterock_fi (current)
Interestingly, the original handle @noisedeaf111156 appears in three older posts. The most notable is a reply from the official @TeamYouTube account to a now-deleted tweet by @noisedeaf111156, which can still be seen here: @TeamYouTube Tweet – April 2023.
The project's Medium blog contains only a single post published in December, with no further activity or updates since then.
The project also maintains a blog at blog.whiterock.fi, which, as of the time of writing this report (June 13th, 2025), is inaccessible. However, by using the Wayback Machine, we were able to view archived versions of the blog and examine its previous contents.
Reddit shows slightly more activity compared to other platforms. But, as previously mentioned, many direct posts about the project are removed by moderators. The subreddit currently has over 4,000 members, but it is essential to determine how many of these are genuine users versus bots or inactive accounts.
Regarding the domain whiterock.fi, historical WHOIS records show it was initially registered in 2019 by an individual named Akinremi. The domain was hosted through Gandi SAS, a French company specializing in domain registration and web hosting services (gandi.net).
On August 20, 2024, the domain was transferred to a private individual, concealing the new registrant’s identity. This change is documented by services such as whois-history.whoisxmlapi.com.
As of June 13, 2025, the project's official Telegram channel has 6,591 members.
$WHITE token analysis
According to the project documentation, the WHITE token operates at the application layer and serves as the core utility token powering the Global RWA Platform. It has a total supply of 1 trillion tokens (1,000,000,000,000), distributed as follows:
65% – Public and Liquidity Pool
20% – Core Contributors (with a 2-year cliff and 60-month vesting schedule, which may be extended)
5% – Airdrop
5% – Marketing
5% – Future Private Sale / Treasury
While 65% of the total WHITE token supply is allocated to the public, the remaining 35% is held and managed by the team at the following wallet address: 0x7c6c0df61546098847d0a18395a74b54b737d4e0
Token creation date: September 30, 2024, at 13:47:47
First DEX pair launch date: November 20, 2024, at 22:22:11
All tokens held in the team wallet are currently unlocked and can be sold at any time. There is no vesting schedule or lock mechanism in place for these tokens, meaning there's no enforceable restriction beyond the team's statements. Monitoring this wallet closely is advisable to track any future movements or potential sell-offs.
The token is available on the following networks:
WHITE on Ethereum:
0x9cdf242ef7975d8c68d5c1f5b6905801699b1940(the main chain for the project where most activity happens)WHITE on Arbitrum:
0x9cdf242Ef7975D8c68D5C1F5B6905801699b1940(On this chain, the token looks dead with only one holder so we won't analyze it)WHITE on Solana (this one is not mentioned in the docs, but looks active):
ENWC66tsY6cyqSrd8a7S9ETc712xCcSAuGcRUwSMWhyo
As of June 12, 2025, the WHITE token has a fully diluted valuation (FDV) of $1.11 billion and a market cap of approximately $732 million, excluding 35% of the total supply still held by the team.
Currently, there are only two notable liquidity pools:
An Ethereum pool with around $1.7 million in liquidity
A Solana pool with roughly $500,000
One important point to highlight is that the liquidity in all pools is currently unlocked, and the team provides 99.92% of it. This means the team has full control and could withdraw the liquidity at any time, potentially executing a rug pull.
This is a significant red flag for any project claiming long-term legitimacy. To build trust and improve credibility, the team should lock or burn the LP tokens, ensuring that the liquidity remains in place and reducing the risk for investors.
The token is also listed on a few centralized exchanges (CEXs), but none of them are well-known or considered reputable within the industry.
PeckShield audited the WHITE token’s smart contract, and the full report is available here: PeckShield Audit Report – WhiteRock v1.0.
However, it's important to note that this audit only covers the token contract itself, not the broader ecosystem. The WhiteRock platform operates using multiple smart contracts, but aside from the one mentioned above, no other contracts have been audited.
This contradicts the claim made on the project’s official website, which states: "Every transaction is processed on the blockchain through smart contracts audited by PeckShield, ensuring a streamlined and secure experience."
We will explore these additional smart contracts and ecosystem features in more detail later in the report.
Another important detail worth highlighting is that both the WHITE and USDX token contracts are implemented as proxy contracts (as explained by the project here).
This means the contracts are upgradeable. The team can modify the underlying logic of the tokens at any time. While major players in the industry commonly use this architecture, it’s typically adopted by well-established, fully doxxed teams with a long track record and strong reputations.
In the case of WhiteRock, where much of the project remains opaque, with unverifiable team members and questionable affiliations, this level of control is a serious red flag. Users are essentially required to trust the team blindly, as no enforceable guarantees prevent future changes that could compromise token holders.
The WHITE token smart contract also includes a blacklist function. This means the contract owner has the authority to add or remove any wallet address from a blacklist at will.
If an address is blacklisted, it becomes completely restricted from transacting and it cannot send or receive WHITE tokens. In other words, the owner has the power to freeze any user’s tokens at any time, without prior notice or justification.
Additionally, it's critical to point out that the contract owner retains the ability to drain all ETH and tokens from the contract at any time.
This means that the wallet controlling the contract has full administrative access, including permissions that allow it to withdraw funds held by the contract, whether that's ETH or other tokens deposited by users. This kind of unrestricted control is highly risky, especially in the absence of transparency, external governance, or time-locked safeguards.
Analyzing the holders, 43% of the token supply was in the hands of team wallets and smart contracts:
0x7C6C0dF61546098847d0A18395a74B54b737D4e0- 35% of the supply, as mentioned in the team wallet documents.0x287Ecebd1223E235b929217fE596c905a11752ae- 0,9% of the supply0xE9c3b7f31Fb4D577012796Ddfb9D608D9F8DecdD- 3,4% of the supply0xe1eEdE768B3D14FD9ac3B1dAf646bF54Fb7B1F55- 0,95% of the supply0x8Bcc959d7Fd790F819E310C4c6916d58363f585a- 3,37% of the supply, Whiterock network fair launch deposit
USDX token analysis
Another previously mentioned component of the WhiteRock platform is the USDX stablecoin (0x54E43F06c5F974EfDadDCe8122060814e3881A45). According to the project documentation, it is described as follows:
At WhiteRock, we are excited to introduce USDX, a revolutionary yield-bearing stablecoin designed to empower you by directly sharing profits from secure investments. USDX combines the stability of a dollar-pegged asset with the earning potential of U.S. Treasury bills, all while maintaining full transparency and accessibility.
The team makes several bold claims regarding the USDX stablecoin, as outlined in their documentation:
Backed by U.S. Treasury Bills: They state that USDX is fully backed by investments in U.S. Treasury bills, widely considered among the safest financial instruments globally.
Automatic Yield Distribution: Profits generated from these Treasury investments are supposedly not retained by the platform. Instead, yield is automatically distributed to all USDX holders by incrementally increasing their token balances daily.
Partnership with BlackRock: The team claims to use BlackRock as a service provider, specifically utilizing BlackRock’s U.S. Treasury ETF to back the yield-bearing USDX token.
Risk-Free Yield: The yield is said to originate solely from short-term U.S. Treasury bonds, which the team characterizes as “completely risk-free.”
1:1 USD Peg: USDX is pegged to the U.S. dollar and, according to the team, can always be minted or redeemed at a fixed rate of $1, ensuring value stability.
Audited & Rated: The project promises future audits by Ernst & Young and a credit rating from Moody’s, which they claim will further guarantee the safety and transparency of the stablecoin.
These claims, while ambitious, currently lack independent verification and raise several questions about transparency and feasibility, especially given the project's limited public track record and multiple other red flags.
As part of our investigation, we attempted to convert a small amount of USDT into USDX to gain a better understanding of the process and gather concrete insights. During this test, we encountered several red flags that raised serious concerns about the platform’s transparency, reliability, and overall trustworthiness.
The USDX smart contract does not support direct conversions from USDX back to USDT or any other USD-pegged stablecoin, effectively making redemptions impossible through the contract itself. Additionally, the contract is structured as a proxy contract, meaning it is upgradeable and can be altered by the team at any time. It also includes a blacklisting function, allowing the owner to restrict specific addresses from sending or receiving tokens
Currently, decentralized exchanges only hold approximately 2,000 USDT in liquidity (in quote token assets). This is insufficient to support redemptions for all circulating USDX.
There is no verifiable on-chain evidence that the USDT received in exchange for USDX is being used for any U.S. Treasury investment, as claimed. Instead, the USDT sent by users is stored in separate wallets assigned to each user. This fragmented structure makes it nearly impossible to track the total amount of USDT collected across the platform or verify whether it is being utilized.
There is currently no evidence to suggest that a rebase mechanism exists to redistribute profits or adjust USDX token balances, as claimed. Despite holding USDX tokens for several days, we did not receive any yield, contrary to the platform’s promise of daily automatic yield distribution. We also examined other wallets holding USDX and found no indication that any of them had received yield either. This raises serious doubts about the validity of the yield distribution claims.
The price of USDX on decentralized exchanges is not consistently pegged 1:1 to the U.S. dollar, as claimed. This lack of price stability contradicts the platform’s assurances and raises further concerns about the reliability and backing of the stablecoin.
Some users also report issues with swapping the stablecoin:
A total of 224 million USDX tokens have been minted, but the team holds at least 95% of the supply. Only 2,494 unique holders have been identified on-chain. Since USDX is required to trade on the platform, and the project claims to have over 10,000 users, these numbers don’t add up. The low number of holders and centralized supply cast serious doubt on the platform's actual usage and user base.
With no verifiable proof of real asset backing, no functional conversion mechanism, and virtually no liquidity in the pools to redeem the token, USDX is practically worthless in its current state. Numerous red flags surround this stablecoin. Stablecoins are expected to be regulated, transparent, and supported by tangible reserves - none of which are demonstrated here. Most of the features the team claims are either misleading, unverified, or simply not working as described.
White Network
The core feature that WhiteRock aims to launch is the White Network, a blockchain designed to be extremely fast and efficient. In addition to this network, the team plans to develop its RWA (Real World Asset) platform as part of the broader dApp layer. For more details, refer to their official documentation: White Network Introduction.
In the section labeled “Technical Edge”, the team makes bold claims about cutting-edge performance and advanced blockchain features. However, there’s a major issue: no technical documentation, implementation details, or proof-of-concept code is provided to support these claims. The section reads more like a marketing document than a technical blueprint, making it difficult to evaluate the feasibility of their promises. For now, it appears to be more hype than substance.
The network is still under development by the team, with the public testnet scheduled for release in Q2 2025.
When users in the community ask about the release date, the team consistently replies with vague statements, such as “coming soon,” without ever providing concrete timelines. When pressed for proof that actual development is taking place, such as a GitHub repository, a working testnet demo, or any technical code, the team shared the following response in the Telegram group:
The link leads to this tweet: https://x.com/WhiteRock_Fi/status/1920558015964475773, which features a short video showing a basic transaction. However, this does not serve as real proof of any functioning blockchain. The demonstration could easily be simulated within a web app and lacks any verifiable technical depth. Upon closer inspection, the video itself appears unconvincing and unprofessional, raising further doubts about its authenticity.
On May 20th, the team announced the launch of a “fair token launch” for a new token called WHITENET, which is described as the native gas token for the upcoming blockchain. According to the official documentation, this token will power the White Network ecosystem. Here's what the docs state:
WHITENET is intended to be the economic backbone of White Network. Once White Network's mainnet goes live, every transaction, whether it is a simple value transfer, a complex RWA trade, or an on-chain compliance check, will consume WHITENET as gas. Tying execution fees to a single scarce asset lets the protocol meter resources, discourage spam, and align validator incentives with overall security and throughput.
And the legal notice from the docs:
More information about the fair token launch and the network can be found on the official site: https://network.whiterock.fi/. Currently, users are given the option to contribute WHITE, ETH, or SOL tokens in exchange for a future allocation of WHITENET tokens. The website displays a claimed contribution total of $50 million in token value.
When a user contributes tokens to the fair launch, the funds are transferred to one of the following addresses:
WHITE Token contributions: All WHITE tokens contributed during the fair launch are sent to the wallet address:
0x8Bcc959d7Fd790F819E310C4c6916d58363f585a. As of now, this wallet holds over 33 billion WHITE tokens, valued at approximately $40 million. Despite having over 6,000 token transfers, there are only 165 unique wallets directly interacting with this address. Upon further investigation, we discovered that 99.6% of the total volume originates from a proxy smart contract (0x9E24525Ca50817F11A05D80AC68fE20bE2D7Bc29). This contract is unverified, meaning its internal logic is hidden and cannot be independently reviewed or trusted. This proxy contract has received WHITE tokens from 2,827 unique addresses, indicating that, in the best-case scenario, around 3,000 users may have participated by depositing WHITE tokens.For Ethereum contributions, user deposits are sent to the smart contract at the address:
0x96780f1746a5e469bfdd37c6b9cdd561a5871ab2. As of now, the contract holds approximately 2.65 ETH. What’s concerning is that the contract is not open source, meaning the code is not publicly verified or available for review. This lack of transparency raises serious questions about what functionality might be hidden within the contract and whether users’ funds are truly safe.
For SOL contributions, all funds are directed to the wallet address:
5PbxYyiTeuzC4Z7SCUETvucXVQDJXuPuF5hiACBVdZQt. However, on-chain data shows only 4.2 SOL received across just nine transfers, indicating very limited actual participation.
As of June 13, 2025, our analysis shows that approximately 3,000 unique wallets have contributed to the token launch. However, the majority of the claimed value is concentrated in WHITE tokens. Given the numerous red flags uncovered during our investigation, ranging from unverifiable claims and opaque smart contracts to the complete lack of technical proof for the promised network, we strongly advise against participating in this so-called "fair" launch.
On-chain activity analysis
We analyzed the flow of funds to and from the deployer address. In the diagrams below, you can see the key transaction paths and wallet interactions we found most noteworthy during our on-chain investigation. While many additional transactions and smart contracts were involved, our main objective was to identify any suspicious activity and assess actual usage of the application. All identified wallets and addresses, along with their associated tags, are provided at the end of this report for reference.
One of the primary objectives of this investigation is to verify the numbers reported by the project. Below, we reference a statement from their website and a recent tweet made just a few days ago.
We’re not exactly sure how the project calculates the user numbers they claim, but we analyzed some on-chain metrics. For example, when trading stocks using USDX, we identified three addresses that appear to receive the trading fees. Based on this, it’s likely that each trade pays a fee to one of the following wallets:
0x6D0d7547Cd6dd38503beEF76544c3130E7D04409 — 1,566 unique wallets
0xd6BdbB0d65382287BDB5cdC3eec0Fe6C88ECf0D3 — 1,083 unique wallets
0x967f1ac9ff6c60501f0a3af7a347caa1adde127c — 1,052 unique wallets
In the best-case scenario, this suggests approximately 3,500 unique wallets have interacted with the trading application.
By analyzing the smart contracts associated with the stock issuance, we found that approximately $150 million worth of stocks have been minted through the same contract system. However, there’s a concerning discrepancy: all stock purchases are supposed to require USDX, yet we did not observe a corresponding amount of USDX minted, except in wallets controlled by the team. This raises serious questions about how the demand for these stocks was generated and suggests that the activity may have been heavily manipulated. It would be worthwhile to further investigate these numbers in relation to the USDX stablecoin to gain a clearer understanding of the full picture.
It would be very helpful if the team could explain how they arrived at these figures and provide on-chain proof to verify the claims made in their posts.
About ZKasino fraud and possible connection
Source: How Two Dubai-Based Kids Took $30M – The ZKasino Exit Scam (Medium)
In early 2024, a crypto gaming project called ZKasino emerged with big promises and even bigger ambitions. Promoted as a gaming-focused Ethereum Layer 2 platform, ZKasino introduced its native token, $ZKAS, alongside a "Bridge-to-Earn" scheme that invited users to deposit ETH in exchange for future token rewards and a guarantee that their ETH would be returned after the mainnet launch.
However, this promise turned out to be an elaborate exit scam, allegedly orchestrated by three individuals:
Elham N. (aka @Derivatives_Ape),
Ildar I. A. (aka @XBT_Prometheus / @lethimdev),
Lyor (aka @Sigman0X).
Between March and April 2024, the project raised over 10,500 ETH (approximately $30 million at the time) from more than 10,000 victims.
Early 2024: The scammers launched ZKasino, a gaming-focused Ethereum Layer 2, introducing a new gas token called $ZKAS.
On March 16, 2024 (14:56:11 UTC), they deployed a “Bridge-to-Earn” smart contract, allowing users to deposit ETH and earn a share of the $ZKAS allocation, promising that at mainnet launch, users would receive both their $ZKAS tokens and their original ETH back.
During the marketing campaign, they forged partnerships with major key opinion leaders (KOLs) to boost credibility.
However, on April 20, 2024 (18:53:23 UTC), instead of honoring withdrawals, the scammers moved 10,515 ETH from the bridge contract into a multisig wallet, which was then staked in Lido Finance.
On April 29, 2024, Dutch authorities arrested Elham N., one of the perpetrators.
By June 19, 2024, the remaining funds were split and transferred from the multisig wallet to two addresses:
0x42dc91caa486a1cbf921a8009404a590414285a3 received 5,271 ETH
0x0ab4a19ab20bd1dde51a5d302721fcc30f34094d received 5,266 ETH
Despite promises to return funds or launch the platform, no such actions were taken.
Several Twitter posts allege possible connections between ZKasino and WhiteRock:
Our investigation found no verifiable on-chain link between ZKasino and WhiteRock. The suspicious transactions mostly ended in THORChain vaults, other cross-chain bridges, or questionable centralized exchanges, making any direct connection unclear.
Conclusion
Our investigation uncovered multiple red flags across nearly every aspect of the project. There is virtually no verifiable proof supporting the claims made by the team. Many features either do not work as expected or operate very differently from what is described in the documentation.
Key concerns include the absence of a whitepaper or any clear technical explanation of how the underlying blockchain will function. Actual user activity and engagement numbers are significantly lower than those publicly announced by the team. None of the claimed partnerships could be independently confirmed, and the team’s stated experience cannot be verified.
We found no on-chain evidence linking this project to ZKasino, while this does not definitively rule out a connection, no proof exists to support such claims.
Additional serious issues include a highly questionable “fair launch,” as well as a supposedly stable USDX token that is de-pegged and lacks any real mechanism to convert back to other assets.
This investigation took over a week to complete. If you identify any information we may have missed or find discrepancies with what has been presented, please let us know, and we will update our findings accordingly.
Sources
Here is the list of sources we used to help us with the investigation:
Last updated
Was this helpful?